April 4, 2017

One minute it's ridiculous to think that the Obama administration was doing surveillance on the Trump campaign. The next minute the Obama administration was doing the right thing if it did surveillance on the Trump campaign.

None of the Obama crowd will do time for anything. Let's be honest here. I'm putting my hopes in Trump following up on his favorite Bible verse: "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." He should start releasing intel on Schumer, Feinstein, Bernie, and the rest of the Dems. Throw in some good Obama secrets as well.

There's a rumor today that Rice had someone creating spreadsheets of all the data. If this is true, then the person who actually did the work will be identified. And the spreadsheets will be shown. It's just a steady drip every day. I can't wait to see the newest justifications today. And then further justifications tomorrow.

Everyone, incl Nunes, says there were folks who were only caught incidentally. So, to say the dime has turned to libs claiming it's good that the BHO folks setup surveillance against DJT and his campaign is not true. Nobody is saying BHO setup surveillance against DJT and his campaign. And, no one, incl Nunes, is saying the incidental stuff and unmasking was illegal.

BTW, it seems like the only leaked name we've seen re unmasking and/or incidental stuff is Flynn. At a minimum he lied to people and on documents to hide some of his contacts and income. The best thing, politically, that could have happened for Ds would have been for nothing to have been leaked so that Flynn was more entrenched in the DJT administration. And, then you lower the boom.

IOW, the one thing that has leaked, i.e., the one thing that was not legal, helped DJT's administration.

This is the oldest story in the book on the Left. Oceana has always been at war with Eastasia, etc. After all, Ignorance is Strength. How about that Hitler-Stalin Pact? Some US commies like Lillian Hellman got whiplash on that one. I just reread Darkness at Noon. Rubashov's explanation to the Belgian dockworkers as to why the ships from Over There with oil for the Fascists had to be unloaded notwithstanding the boycott of the Fascists is a classic.

1. This is impossible. Only crazy people think DEMOCRAT would do X (have relations with that woman; spy on Trump/journalists/Congress; run guns to the cartels; lie about a video; have a secret server.)

2. Ok, maybe it happened, maybe it didn't, but we can't ever know for sure.

3. Ok, it DID happen, but it wasn't wrong.

4. Ok, it was maybe wrong, but it wasn't ILLEGAL.

5. Ok, maybe it was illegal, but it was so long ago, can't we just move on?

Premature. I am waiting for it to become shown that the "collections" were not incidental to listening to "goreign agents," but specifically targeting persons likely to gossip about the Trump campaign or other Obama opponents.

"Everyone, incl Nunes, says there were folks who were only caught incidentally."

-- The argument is that the surveillance was set up DELIBERATELY to capture these people incidentally, which seems to be the case as even Clapper and others acknowledge no real intelligence was found and that the transcript shows that Flynn wasn't saying or doing anything illegal.

Put more simply, this dime change thing only makes sense because Althouse made up this:

"The next minute the Obama administration was doing the right thing if it did surveillance on the Trump campaign."

In fact the piece says that the BHO admin was legally surveilling potential foreign threats/folks, but the DJT folks turned out to be chummy w/ such folks. There's no "if" re "surveillance on the Trump campaign." Is there a tag for "Althouse lies?"

As I wrote on the previous thread, Cernovich revealed where he got the information on Rice- he had sources in both the NYTimes and Bloomberg who claimed that both publications have had this information for some time, but sat on it because it was favorable to Trump. Lake only published yesterday after Cernovich stole his scoop.

I think it will soon be absolutely clear that the surveillance of Trump and his staff wasn't incidental at all. Ms. Rice has already lied about this in a public forum. If Congress calls her, I expect she will take the 5th.

Hmmm...just imagine if Stephen Hadley (GWB National Security advisor) had done this to President Obamas before he was nominated and after?? OMG...The world would have exploded....now...CRICKETS!! I am so awed by the way CNN is covering this, I am beside myself. They say there is no evidence. There is no evidence of a Trump/Russia collusion, but THAT hasn't stopped them!!

Somewhat related to what Cookie posted above**, there's a deeper problem here: What if the security apparatus of the modern state can be wielded so easily & effectively against the opponents of the state that it's become the modern version of "The One Ring", i.e. that it can't be used without corrupting the user.

Is it time to radically re-think the place & purpose of the modern security state? Is that even possible?

I get paid to think deep thoughts. You're welcome.

** Making me read an article in Counterpunch that I actually agree with before noon. God will punish you for that, Cookie. He will.

Does that reflect an admiration of Castro? Or does it reflect the deep state's anticipation of being able to to exploit relations with Cuba--now that Fidel is dead and Raul is of an age that he will likely soon retire or expire--and plan to return it to its glory days of being a capitalist outpost south of Florida?

(Helpful note: when ending a sentence with an ellipsis, always use four dots...the first three are the ellipsis, the fourth is the period. I fixed it for you in my cut-and-paste.)

The article told about a group of "computer scientists" who called themselves "The Union of Concerned Nerds".

(quote)

In late spring [of 2016], this community of malware hunters placed itself in a high state of alarm. Word arrived that Russian hackers had infiltrated the servers of the Democratic National Committee, an attack persuasively detailed by the respected cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike.

The computer scientists posited a logical hypothesis, which they set out to rigorously test: If the Russians were worming their way into the DNC, they might very well be attacking other entities central to the presidential campaign, including Donald Trump’s many servers.

“We wanted to help defend both campaigns, because we wanted to preserve the integrity of the election,” says one of the academics, who works at a university that asked him not to speak with reporters because of the sensitive nature of his work. ....

In late July, one of these scientists —- who asked to be referred to as Tea Leaves, a pseudonym that would protect his relationship with the networks and banks that employ him to sift their data -— found what looked like malware emanating from Russia. The destination domain had Trump in its name, which of course attracted Tea Leaves’ attention. But his discovery of the data was pure happenstance —- a surprising needle in a large haystack of DNS lookups on his screen.

(end quote; emphasis added)

PURE HAPPENSTANCE —- A SURPRISING NEEDLE IN A LARGE HAYSTACK !!

That small group of "concerned nerds" sure was lucky that they happened to notice that "needle in a large haystack". Or maybe they received a tip from some large intelligence organization that has the computer resources to find needles in haystacks.

Hard to take the Russia thing seriously. It seems like the Resistance's equivalent of yelling "Look! Squirrel!" to distract from some of its own members' -- HRC, Podesta, "I can be flexible later" Obama -- vulnerabilities.

All of our politicians are malleable to some degree and, more to the point, most are eager to fudge things when there is money to be made. I just wish a few of them were as smart, strategically, as Vladimir Putin, who holds no aces or face cards but has been running the table for years.

I also wish the last administration had taken some of this crap seriously. When the IRS goes rogue or a political appointee misuses security intel against political enemies, the failure to shut it down erodes trust in the larger project of democracy. I don't understand why this isn't glaringly obvious to people of all political persuasions.

The objective was to help Hillary win the election. Rice was selected to lead the effort because she was a reliable hack and had the authority as NSA to order it done.

This means that others were survielled too since Trump was not the frontrunner when all this was initiated. Probably Bernie too.

They did it because they never expected to get caught. Trump getting elected threw a wrench into the works. This resulted a massive effort to deligitimize Trump and maybe get him thrown out of office - including the Trump/Russia meme.

Nothing will come of this. It's a dog a pony show. Do you really think a recused Attorney General and a Clinton operative in charge of the FBI is going to get to the bottom of this?

How about the bi-partisan effort in Congress to "Get Trump!"; you think they have any interest in making Trump the victim?

I applaud the fact that some still think we're a nation of laws. I wished I shared that view. I cannot.

You know this is a dog and pony show when you hear, to a man/woman, that Susan Rice "should testify before Congress and answer the questions."

Got it-

You want a known and brazen liar to answer loaded and political questions in public that is related to top secret material that you know she can't answer even if she wanted to?

Aside: If Obama was using the Intelligence Community to spy on Trump long before he was even a viable candidate would have to mean that Obama was spying on EVERYONE that could threaten Hillary in the election.

Also - You know how much the Michael Moore left admire Leftwing dictator Castro. Yes, that would include Obama.The left excuse Castro and admire his iron fist. You know "Free health care!" and all that garbage.

They haven't been able to internalize that Trump is not GOPe in temperament. Nor is he an incompetent hack who has advanced due to toeing the party line.

Trump is a ZSG kind of guy. The fact of the matter is that I would be surprised if the Obama admin wasn't using the national security apparatus to spy on anyone they considered to be their political enemy.

Why wouldn't they? Moral? It is to laugh. The only reason to not do so was fear of getting caught. And that wasn't going to happen. Even if JEB!, somehow, became president, do you think he would be exposing this? Nope. He would want to preserve bi-partisanship so that he could get comprehensive immigration reform through.

Well the narrative has always been the reason that I believed Trump's tweets and was completely bewildered why the media reacted the way it did. All Trump did was flip the narrative of who was doing the "bad" stuff.

Well. two can play this inversion or turnaround Game on talking points...

All you Dems who will shrug off the weaponization and politicization of our intelligence apparatus, just ask yourself this:

"If I am comfortable with Barack Obama having these unchecked Powers, am I comfortable with Donald Trump having them too?"

... I didn't think so...

Personally, I am not comfortable with any politician doing what Obama did with the IRS and the intelligence powers. Yes, he "blew a hole in the wall" and perverted the power to nefarious partisan use.

A nice long jail sentence for Rice and Obama would send a strong signal that this is not tolerated in America. A shrug of the shoulders will guarantee that it will be used... and there won't be an America

That small group of "concerned nerds" sure was lucky that they happened to notice that "needle in a large haystack". Or maybe they received a tip from some large intelligence organization that has the computer resources to find needles in haystacks.

Umm no. They were, probably illegally, but certainly in a way that should have gotten them fired, trawling the DNS logs of the ISP they were working for for the name "Trump" which was IN THE DOMAIN NAME of these nefarious communications. One might think that a billionaire in cahoots with a sophisticated intelligence agency capable of "hacking our elections" would not have sent their comms in clear text over the regular internet, but might have used the dark web and layers of obfuscation to cover their tracks.

Tea Leaves should be found and fired for violating the confidentiality of the ISP's customers, and Glenn Greenwald, of all people, has already ably demonstrated that what "Tea Leaves" found was email marketing for Trump luxury properties.

She's not stupid - it's a calculated risk that they are taking, and considering their success rate in the past, and the unwillingness of the press to pursue these types of things with Obama, it's actually a fairly safe bet.

And realistically, it's pretty unlikely that Trump is going to go all-out to prosecute. There are too many other things that Obama et al left in a screwed-up condition that are higher priorities for the time and energy of the administration. So even if it the surveillance ends up not accomplishing what they hoped for, it probably won't result in any punishment.

"He has made life easier for the Castro dictatorship in Cuba," Gingrich observed, "why not embrace or at least be cheerful and friendly with Hugo Chavez? I think it sends a terrible signal to all of Latin America, and a terrible signal about how the new administration regards dictators." Sen. John Ensign, a Republican from Nevada, deemed the handshake "irresponsible," saying Chavez "is a brutal dictator."It's true, of course, that the Chavez regime has some issues. According to the State Department's latest human-rights report on Venezuela, there are even some indications of torture, which remains a bad thing no matter how much Gingrich and other conservatives deny it in other contexts. But the image of Chavez as a "brutal dictator" is absurdly overblown.

Honduras, which has long had close ties to Washington, has more recently emerged as a proxy for the interests of both Venezuela and the United States. With subsidized oil, Mr. Chávez lured Honduras into his leftist alliance, the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas. Meanwhile, the United States did not cut off development and military aid to Honduras, in an attempt to maintain influence there.

On the same day, October 31, that Slate published its article (the author was Franklin Foer) about Trump's server communicating with Russia, Jake Sullivan, "a senior policy adviser for Hillary for America", issued a "statement" that said:

(quote)

This could be the most direct link yet between Donald Trump and Moscow. Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank.

This secret hotline may be the key to unlocking the mystery of Trump’s ties to Russia. It certainly seems the Trump Organization felt it had something to hide, given that it apparently took steps to conceal the link when it was discovered by journalists. ....

(end quote)

How did Jake Sullivan know already on October 31 that the Trump Organization "took steps to conceal the link when it was discovered by journalists"?

OMG. Tricky Trump has just exposed an Obama Secret Police State which was a replica of the USSR's KGB. And this Obama Secret Police State also justified a total surveilance of ALL its people, "To catch Russian Spies," just like The old KGB justified its evil done to its people, "to Catch American spies."

They are all lying. And this Secret Police State still is alive and well and owns and operates CNN and MSNBC.

"She's not stupid - it's a calculated risk that they are taking, and considering their success rate in the past, and the unwillingness of the press to pursue these types of things with Obama, it's actually a fairly safe bet."

-- Exactly. Holder wasn't fired for perjuring himself about lying about spying on journalists or Congress (I forget which one he lied under oath about), so, why would they think anyone else would suffer consequences?

If I found out that employees of my ISP were spying on my private corporate communications and leaking their "findings" to the press, in a totally distorted matter, I would fire my ISP sooner than quicker. Anybody with an IQ above room temperature would (Sorry Althouse). I guess though that if Trump does it, he must have something to hide!

The Obama administration blew a hole in the wall between national security secrets and partisan politics. This stream of information was supposed to be hermetically sealed from politics and the Obama administration found a way to blow a hole in that wall.

Author also wrote "The Goddess Pose: The Audacious Life of Indra Devi, the Woman Who Helped Bring Yoga to the West"; I have reason to believe that the book doesn't mention the best known and most beloved practitioner of yoga ever.

Look, you seem like a reasonable guy. Are you actually arguing that Obama eschews the academic left's romantic view of Castro and Guevara? Or, do you assume it's probably true, but want to play a little game? I suspect it's the latter.

If you want to argue the former, go for it. Seems like a waste of your time.

Everyone, incl Nunes, says there were folks who were only caught incidentally.

Sure, but it was the act of combing through these intercepts, swept up by a wide net, and organizing the results as they pertained to American citizens, where no criminal activity was involved that is the problem.

Or maybe it is not a problem for you lefties for your political party to use the powers of the state against your enemies. Which is why you can't be trusted with this power.

Still wonder what they had on Roberts, Romney, Boehner, McConnnel, etc to make them so passively useless to the GOP.

Occam's razor: they are simply doing what made them rich and powerful. Nothing more to it.

As Milton Friedman once said: Politicians will do certain things when you make it politically profitable for them to do them. Warm Milk GOP politics has been very good to these guys. Trumpism could be dead in three years.

If you want to be saddened, look at the comments at that piece at Slate. After several months of not a hint of any evidence, and contrary to all logic, they all just KNOW that Trump colluded with Putin to fix the election.

This is the use of the IRS by the Democrats all over again. Republicans are to blame too for not making a bigger deal out of it. Lois Lerner is enjoying her pension, but her hoped for job at the Clinton Foundation? Not looking good.

On October 31 -- eight days before the election -- Hillary Clinton tweeted Jake Sullivan's "statement" reporting that the Trump Organization had taken "steps to conceal the link when it was discovered by journalists". The "link" was some mysterious communications between Trump's server and a Russian bank that some anonymous "computer scientists" had discovered by PURE HAPPENSTANCE —- A SURPRISING NEEDLE IN A LARGE HAYSTACK

This information received surprisingly little reporting in the mass media. Alan Moore in a DC Statesman article explained the lack of reporting thus:

(quote)

This was not widely disseminated in the press, mainly because it appeared to be a pathetic attempt to shift the discussion on Hillary’s own server problems.

Also, the story about Trump's server was overwhelmed by the simultaneous story about Anthony Weiner's laptop computer.

I speculate that the Slate article and Sullivan's statement and Clinton's tweet on October 31 were supposed to be just the beginning of a week-long series of leaks about Russian links to Trump and his associates.

I speculate further that Clinton interrupted the series of leaks because she was spooked by FBI Director Comey's announcement that he was re-opening his investigation of Clinton's own sneaky activities. That's why Clinton blames Comey for her election defeat.

Its interesting isnt it? Coordinated messaging, no confusion, no variety.Near real time response to changes in the situation. What can one then conclude about the nature of the news industry?The only question in my mind is the identity of the coordinator.

As it has been pointed out many times Trump Tower was full of Russian criminals and money laundering folks under surveillance so of course any conversations were monitored, and as Rebecca Lonergan said, “If she’s asking for specific names to be unmasked in order to understand what Russia may be doing to influence the U.S. political system and influence our elections, presumably in a way they thought would benefit them, she’s doing her job.”

"As it has been pointed out many times Trump Tower was full of Russian criminals and money laundering folks under surveillance so of course any conversations were monitored,"

-- According to the people who've read what has been handed over, not a single conversation that was leaked, with illegally unmasked names, show any evidence of illegal activity. So, if people have been pointing this out many times to you, they've been lying to you. Ask them to stop lying to you.

Rebecca Lonergan said, “If she’s asking for specific names to be unmasked in order to understand what Russia may be doing to influence the U.S. political system and influence our elections, presumably in a way they thought would benefit them, she’s doing her job.”

-- Actually, Susan Rice already knows the names of the people being surveilled, or could have asked for just her to be briefed on it. What unmasking is is revealing the name on the source document for everyone and anyone who sees it to know who is speaking. So, if Lonergan thinks that all that happened is Rice asked, "Hey, who is speaking here?", she's wrong on the facts, and you should consider that before listening to her any more.

You've got this wrong, Althouse. And you really shouldn't be so fey about your language in this case.

I know that I wrote much the same in your comments over the past weeks; that I am not at all surprised, that the U.S. is conducting regular and ongoing surveillance on foreign targets. And if Trump-team members got caught up in that, that too is not surprising.

If I were the NSA in a Democrat administration, and I learned that the staff of Dick Durbin, or Chuck Schumer, or Ruth Bader Ginsburg, or Governor Jerry Brown, or Elizabeth Warren had been noted as participating in conversations with Russian agents whom we had under regular NSC surveillance, I think that I'd ask for details and further information, too.

What WAS and STILL IS ridiculous, is that "Obama wiretapped Trump Tower." In a way that ought to make us think that Obama is himself a "bad (or sick) guy." THAT is ridiculous. THAT never happened.

Michelle Goldberg is of course a liberal; had she been fairer, she might have noted the legitimate concern as to how names of Americans found in legal warrantless foreign surveillance get handled. At the same time, she didn't mention the ongoing mystery as to why the members of the Trump team haven't been more forthcoming about their Russian contacts. At this point, if I were won of them, I think I'd publish a diary of the date, time and reason for every contact I had with anyone with any connection to Russia in the last two years, to clear the air.

But no, Althouse; to the extent that you think this is some weird new re-twisting of positions to suit Trump critics, you haven't been paying attention and certainly not to my position.

As it has been pointed out many times Trump Tower was full of Russian criminals and money laundering folks

You mean people who owned his condos?

Three owners of Trump condos in Florida and Manhattan were accused in federal indictments of belonging to a Russian-American organized crime group and working for a major international crime boss based in Russia.

• A former mayor from Kazakhstan was accused in a federal lawsuit filed in Los Angeles in 2014 of hiding millions of dollars looted from his city, some of which was spent on three Trump SoHo units.

• A Ukrainian owner of two Trump condos in Florida was indicted in a money-laundering scheme involving a former prime minister of Ukraine.

Or people who were part of the thousands of employees of companies he did business with in Russia?

That's all that Obama and the Democrats need to declare you a criminal though, and use the Stazi like powers of the NSA to start combing through your life!

There better be a pony there, or you guys are looking at another Watergate. Oh, excep the press doesn't care since, as we know from Wikileaks, the press is in it up to their ears.

"If I were the NSA in a Republican administration, and I learned that the staff of Dick Durbin, or Chuck Schumer, or Ruth Bader Ginsburg, or Governor Jerry Brown, or Elizabeth Warren had been noted as participating in conversations with Russian agents whom we had under regular NSC surveillance, I think that I'd ask for details and further information, too."

That typo is a result of my starting to write that hypothetical one way, and then changing it. Sorry.

What WAS and STILL IS ridiculous, is that "Obama wiretapped Trump Tower." In a way that ought to make us think that Obama is himself a "bad (or sick) guy." THAT is ridiculous. THAT never happened. - Chuck

Is the news embargo of the Susan Rice story still in place at the NYT and the Wapo?

I have noticed my local paper, the Philadelphia Inquirer, has, for the 3rd straight day, been highlighting lawsuits at Fox news against Bill O'Reilly yet it hasn't published a word about the Rice story.

The incidental recording of private citizens by national security surveillance is legal, but the unmasking and dissemination are both felonies except when there is hard evidence of a clear and present danger of violence against the USA. I think the penalty for doing either for political reasons is ten years. Susan Rice has been described as the sister Obama never had in puff pieces in the media. That will change into they hardly know each other.

Please name the leftist run country without a secret police to spy on the natives. Ceuceseu, Pol Pot, Stalin and the rest of the Russians, the Stasi, Kim Un family, the Muslim Brotherhood, Iran, Cuba, Venezeuala, Ecuador.... the list goes on and on.

Rooting out "dissenters" and "capitalists" is what leftists DO, Cook. They are never happier than sending capitalist traitors to the camps.

"If I were the NSA in a Democrat administration, and I learned that the staff of Dick Durbin, or Chuck Schumer, or Ruth Bader Ginsburg, or Governor Jerry Brown, or Elizabeth Warren had been noted as participating in conversations with Russian agents whom we had under regular NSC surveillance, I think that I'd ask for details and further information, too."

You think they're not?

"I meet with foreign leaders all the time as a senator, I wonder if my meetings are being surveilled by our intelligence community," Graham said. "If so, I think when I'm involved that may be inappropriate because I may be talking of things of policy that I don't want the executive branch to know about."

Kevin: "In the meantime, Dems need talking points before they log on to FB or get trapped at the office coffee pot. It's the media's job to make sure they are well-supplied, lest the machine break down"

Basically the latest Lefty/MSM/Dem/"lifelong republican" talking points boil down to screaming "Collusion" louder, launching another couple hilariously similar innuendo-laden leaks (see WaPo's on Seychelles) and basically say that no one is allowed to discuss the subject (see CNN and pals).

And yet, as noted earlier today, none of that matters.

This story will continue to be driven by the information leaking out of the intelligence agencies by whistleblowers and investigators in what we might soon be able to call "The Revolt of The Honest Career Intelligence Officers".

So, naturally, "lifelong republicans" and dems will need to go into "Full Personal Destruction Mode" for those darn whistleblowers and their inconvenient, very very inconvenient, facts.

"What WAS and STILL IS ridiculous, is that "Obama wiretapped Trump Tower." In a way that ought to make us think that Obama is himself a "bad (or sick) guy." THAT is ridiculous. THAT never happened."

-- At this point, it looks to me like the "surveillance" of "Russians" was a thin veneer to hide the real goal, surveillance of Trump (as spreadsheets of data on Trump family members, transition team members, etc. makes clear.) So, yes. Technically, on paper, the Obama administration wasn't wiretapping Trump; that was just a delightful bonus for their people.

Chuck said...If I were the NSA in a Democrat administration, and I learned that the staff of Dick Durbin, or Chuck Schumer, or Ruth Bader Ginsburg, or Governor Jerry Brown, or Elizabeth Warren had been noted as participating in conversations with Russian agents whom we had under regular NSC surveillance, I think that I'd ask for details and further information, too.

Would you, Chuck? Would you then take the highly unusual step of working to unmask the identities of those US citizens and spread that information around the government, as widely as possible, with the understanding that copious leaks would smear those people in ways they can't hope to defend? Is that something you'd do? 'Cause, I mean, that's what we're talking about here, right? Seems like we ought to stick to the actual situation.

"I meet with foreign leaders all the time as a senator, I wonder if my meetings are being surveilled by our intelligence community," Graham said. "If so, I think when I'm involved that may be inappropriate because I may be talking of things of policy that I don't want the executive branch to know about."

Cookie says that Obambi can not be considered an ideological pal of Chavez and Castro because "policies".

Of course it's quite true that obambi was never able to fully implement the standard leftist "Everyone Starves" policies that all leftists adore, but that was only because obambi knew he couldn't get away with it.

On the other hand, it appears highly, HIGHLY, likely that obambi was able to "pull the trigger" on the beginning of the standard lefty beloved-Stasi-like state.

Well played obambi.

And he would have gotten away with it too if it hadn't been for that meddling election-winning Trump!

I'll just note that Chuck is never so unhinged and swearing, cussing, and full out freakshow as when Obama is under assault. Maybe he can tell us why it is that every time Obama or his administration are shown to have done something illegal that Chuck, who after all is a lifelong REPUBLICAN and thus should actually be opposed to Obama, instead defends him at all costs and does his best to attack everyone accusing Obama.

The bile spilled by Chuck attacking people who "say bad things about Obama!" is really the key reason why you, Chuck, are accused of being a Democrat flunky.

So how did this kind of tactics work out for Democrats in Wisconsin Inga? How did the O Dark Thirty raids on Republicans, the nasty demonstration tactics, the attempted recalls, how has that played out in Wisconsin politic?

I don't know who pointed it out, but I always have to laugh when the same people stick to the most literal possible interpretation of "wiretapping" use the phrase "hacked the election" when what they really mean is got the truth out about Hillary.

If I were the NSA in a Republican administration, and I learned that the staff of Dick Durbin, or Chuck Schumer, or Ruth Bader Ginsburg, or Governor Jerry Brown, or Elizabeth Warren had been noted as participating in conversations with Russian agents whom we had under regular NSC surveillance, I think that I'd ask for details and further information, too.

I doubt that the telephone conversations of Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak were "under regular NSC surveillance".

It would be a waste of time for the US Intelligence Community to listen to Kislyak's telephone conversations. He is not using his telephone to manage any nefarious activities.

The recording of Kislyak's telephone conversation was not a "regular NSC surveillance".

Kislyak's telephone conversations were recorded for only one purpose -- to catch anyone in Trump's future administration talking about foreign policy before the inauguration and thus violating THE LOGAN ACT. Any such violator would become vulnerable to RUSSIAN BLACKMAIL because Ambassador Kislyak might threaten to reveal his own recordings of his own telephone conversations to the US public.

This blackmail idea was the absurd obsession of Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, who could order the FBI, which was subordinate to her, to wiretap the Russian Embassy.

Wrong, the truth didn't change. No need to "turn any message on a dime". The message always clearly stated that the Intelligence Community was doing it's job which is intercepting communications of foreign government agents. If Americans are swept up in that, that's that, too bad for them. Lay down with dogs, get up with fleas.

Would you care to weigh in on the alleged creation of spreadsheets detailing conversations gathered by the NSA on Trump family members, campaign staffers, transition team members and probably Trump himself?

Would you care to weigh in on the reasonable assumption that these behaviors are likely practiced against all Republican presidential candidates, including those you lie about preferring to Hillary Clinton?

"The message always clearly stated that the Intelligence Community was doing it's job which is intercepting communications of foreign government agents. If Americans are swept up in that, that's that, too bad for them. Lay down with dogs, get up with fleas."

-- See my comment above that addresses this. That was not the message at the start of this. At the start, we had 100% proof of Trump's Golden Showers Dossier that the intercepts 100% proved. Now we have no evidence of anything illegal, that the intercepts have no intelligence value, and that people were unmasked despite there being no intelligence value in doing so.

Unknown said...I posted this on the earlier thread, but I'll repost it here:

I'll just note that Chuck is never so unhinged and swearing, cussing, and full out freakshow as when Obama is under assault. Maybe he can tell us why it is that every time Obama or his administration are shown to have done something illegal that Chuck, who after all is a lifelong REPUBLICAN and thus should actually be opposed to Obama, instead defends him at all costs and does his best to attack everyone accusing Obama.

The bile spilled by Chuck attacking people who "say bad things about Obama!" is really the key reason why you, Chuck, are accused of being a Democrat flunky.

--Vance

Well, Vance that's on you and all of the others so personally wound up with Trump. You've never once seen me advocate an Obama policy; I have repeatedly advocated Republican policy.

You can say a great many bad things about Obama that would be fine with me.

My complaints with Trump are almost all personal. His style; his stupidity; his ugliness; his illiteracy; his recklessness.

Neither you nor anyone else has any basis to call me a Democrat or a Dem-sympathizer. You don't do that to Ann Althouse, who confesses to having voted for Obama. I didn't do that.

You can see that Inga is still about 36 hours behind (which is typical for her) in sticking to the 2 day ago talking points when the story has already moved to spreadsheets of non-Russia investigation related intercepts which were also unmasked and launched into the newly devised Obambi-maximum-exposure-of-raw-data pipeline.

Not to worry. Even the normal squishes, Graham and McCain have said they are digging into this and Graham even said the intel agencies better start responding ASAP to information requests.

I'm afraid the days of the Deep State obambi-ite intel agency political appointees stonewalling the committees is coming to an end.

Anyway, Chuck, you're a lawyer, right? You understand pretexual actions, yeah? Like when a cop wants to check out a suspicious car and pulls them over for not signaling for 100 feet before making a lane change--when really he just wants to get a chance to search the guy, etc. That's not some foreign concept, right? I mean, the cop will argue that he's just doing his job, just following the law, but sophisticated lawyers like you understand that it's really an abuse--that the cop's using a legitimate method (enforcing traffic laws) to achieve an illegitimate end (searching someone without having the requisite probably cause first).

Now, Chuck: do you think that concept might apply, in any way, to possible IC activity/surveillance actions by the government? Politically-directed or influenced actions, maybe? Like...if I want to spy on a dude, but I know it's illegal to do so, but I also know that the dude I want to get dirt on might talk to some OTHER dudes and it's legal for me to spy on those other dudes...so I push to expand surveillance under the pretext of legal collection activity, but really with the intent of both getting and spreading dirt on my political opponents. Is that a crazy fantasy story I'm telling, Chuck, or do you think something like that might maybe be possible in this world we currently inhabit?

If it's in any way plausible, Chuck, what kinds of things would you think you'd find as evidence? Certainly the IC will have good, legal reasons for their collection activities (just as a cop would have a good reason for the traffic stop), so what else should we look for? Well, to my mind, the big clue would be how whatever was collected was used. After all, just getting dirt (or the appearance of dirt, or whatever) doesn't do any good. If the info stays locked up in SCIFs or filed away somewhere in some NSA basement, then who cares? No, if political people were actually involved in something like this they'd need to spread the info--and more specifically they'd need to make sure it could be tied to identifiable individuals so that actual harm could be done (it wouldn't do much good to say "some unnamed Americans were talkin' with the Rooskies," you'd need to pin it on someone).Make sense?

Now, from what's being reported now, it sure sounds like Rice engaged in exactly the kind of behavior my scenario predicted. Don't you agree? She allegedly requested info on specific individuals, made sure those individuals were unmaksed in the reports, and then was a part of spreading the reports (with US citizens unmasked) around.

Kinda fits the expected pattern, huh? I mean, I'm sure Dems can say "nothing unusual happened, how dare anyone question the integrity of our national security personnel" and what not, but if we're doing the whole "where there's smoke, there's fire" deal against Trump I have to say there's sure a hell of a lot of smoke coming from the Obama people...

Also, if they were keeping tabs on Trump's ties to Russia -- where are the leaks about Clinton's ties to foreign governments? She's taken millions from some. Why are there no unmasked intercepts with spreadsheets of data compiled about her and the Clinton Global Initiative?

Would you care to weigh in on the alleged creation of spreadsheets detailing conversations gathered by the NSA on Trump family members, campaign staffers, transition team members and probably Trump himself?

Well we know you aren't a "so-called judge," or a "so-called asshole." You are a genuine, 100 per cent purebred asshole.

And no, I wouldn't care to comment for you. I don't know. I do know enough, to immediately doubt anything that comes out of the Trump-media orbit. but more than anything, I want a searing, searching investigation into all of this. I want to hear the truth from somebody I might believe. Which rules out Trump, Spicer, Hannity and most of the websites that Trump seems to peruse at 5 am on Saturday mornings. (Aren't there some good cartoons he could be watching at that hour?)

The other main point made by a few of the key reporters (Adam Housley for one) has reported that multiple current intel agents (the ones revolting over what the dems have done) have told him explicitly that the "incidental" line of defense is BS and that is really going on here is "Reverse Monitoring" whereby the intel agencies use the cover of a supposed legit target to actually monitor other parties.

These agents, as reported by Housley and others, have stated that when the full extent of the non-Russia related monitoring of Trump/Trump Campaign/Trump family/Trump associates is fully exposed, there will be no doubt as to the real, political, intent.

It's clear that Schiff-ty saw something that gave him pause because for the first time in about 8 months he clammed right up after viewing the documents just the other day.

Schiff-ty clamming up.

Reverse Monitoring.

Get used to it. You are going to see much more it to come.

I fully expect a full "lifelong republican" Chuck "win-win Meltdown" and lashing attack on any Trump child or grandchild within range.

3rdGradePB_GoodPerson said...Everyone, incl Nunes, says there were folks who were only caught incidentally. So, to say the dime has turned to libs claiming it's good that the BHO folks setup surveillance against DJT and his campaign is not true. Nobody is saying BHO setup surveillance against DJT and his campaign. And, no one, incl Nunes, is saying the incidental stuff and unmasking was illegal.

Incidentally? Didn't the Obama State Department actually arrange meetings between Russians and Republicans at the Republican convention?

Given "gave concerns" on the part of Obama insiders about Russian contacts at the time, the meetings they set-up at the GOP convention sound like a, well, set-up to be used as a dragnet against Republicans.

In the matter of Russian surveillance, I presume that our guys need no "pretext." I hope and expect and presume that we are surveilling all of their agents, every chance we get.

What I'd expect now is that any Trump official or former campaign staffer who had contacts with Russians under surveillance would divulge every last detail of every single thing they talked about, to the Senate Intelligence Committee and the FBI.

Matthew Sablan: "Also, if they were keeping tabs on Trump's ties to Russia -- where are the leaks about Clinton's ties to foreign governments? She's taken millions from some."

The Russians gave the Clinton Global Initiative tens of millions and a sweet little $500,000 payday to Billy boy for a little old speech.

Which was then followed, unexpectedly, by a handing over of 1/5th of the US uranium productive capacity.

Now, I should say (in "pre-defense from "lifelong republican" Chuck attack mode), that this was reported in the NYT, one of the usual "sources" of Chuckies....lets say "unique"...brand of "lifelong republican" sourcing.

One always has to be prepared for a full-on assault from Chuck when one criticizes or makes note of democrat failings.

"Also, if they were keeping tabs on Trump's ties to Russia -- where are the leaks about Clinton's ties to foreign governments? She's taken millions from some. Why are there no unmasked intercepts with spreadsheets of data compiled about her and the Clinton Global Initiative?"

Electing Trump is a Black Swan kind of event to the political and media class. They simply could not see it coming.

And Trump is a liberal, but the kind of liberal you had in the 60s and 70s that was from working class roots. So he doesn't buy into the PC bullshit. And his family hasn't had money long enough to go decadent.

The thing is, Trump has changed the political landscape and it is not going back to the status quo. Trump won the presidency by appealing to working and middle class people that everyone else had taken for granted or written off. Trump appealed to their pride and offered them something besides "retraining." Those people are going to continue to expect politicians who want their votes to offer them something besides bromides and if the current crop of politicians won't do that, some new politicians will be found.

President-Mom-Jeans said..."Which rules out Trump, Spicer, Hannity and most of the websites that Trump seems to peruse" Vichy Chuck is nothing if not consistent, only his beloved Rachel Maddow will do when it comes to news sources. Just like every real lifelong Republican.

You moronic shit head. I'm the guy who has been linking to the Wall Street Journal, the National Review and the Weekly Standard for so many years here.

And your bogus cheap shot about Rachel Maddow, I want to remind every fair-minded reader, stems from my recommending one and only one Rachel Maddow interview: the one she did with Kellyanne Conway, which extended for almost a full hour, and in which I actually (and uncharacteristically) congratulated both Conway and Maddow. They were great questions, and some very good answers. The Conway answers were only weakened by her having to answer for some of the worst Trump stupidities.

Ron Winkleheimer: "Electing Trump is a Black Swan kind of event to the political and media class. They simply could not see it coming."

Which is why Chucks beloved dems felt little inhibition in violating the rules regarding surveillance of political opponents.

After all, Hillary, as "lifelong republican" Chuck, Inga and the entire left assured us, could not lose!

"Unpossible"!

So why not break the rules? You know, just in case the dems/left/"lifelong republicans" need to go after a few others like they did to Stevens in Alaska, or Perry, or Delay, etc. Could be some really good "stuff" in there. Perhaps enough to swing the senate or house!

And wouldn't that be "special" to nail down, finally, the establishment of permanent lefty control of our government?

3rdGradePB_GoodPerson said...Everyone, incl Nunes, says there were folks who were only caught incidentally. So, to say the dime has turned to libs claiming it's good that the BHO folks setup surveillance against DJT and his campaign is not true. Nobody is saying BHO setup surveillance against DJT and his campaign. And, no one, incl Nunes, is saying the incidental stuff and unmasking was illegal.

BTW, it seems like the only leaked name we've seen re unmasking and/or incidental stuff is Flynn. At a minimum he lied to people and on documents to hide some of his contacts and income. The best thing, politically, that could have happened for Ds would have been for nothing to have been leaked so that Flynn was more entrenched in the DJT administration. And, then you lower the boom.

IOW, the one thing that has leaked, i.e., the one thing that was not legal, helped DJT's administration.

What's up w/ that?

This is the difference between the right and the left. If Bush or Trump or anyone on the right did what Obama did we would be right there putting him in jail. But most of the people on the left will excuse the democrats anything including using the intelligence apparatus on political opponents. They have sold their sou for power.

Note to self: Here we witness the subject having to be dragged, kicking and screaming, (yes, apparently screaming), to the unavoidable, perfectly reasonable and inevitable position of supporting questions of the dems at the heart of this growing scandal. One wonders what other blinders to democrat perfidy this subject has constructed within the recesses of his psyche?

Why does Lifelong Republican Trump and Inga's posts sound identical? By that I mean there's not a dimes worth of ideological difference between. Inga has actually gone farther: she has called for Rice to be investigated to see if there's any truth to this.

Lifelong Republican Chuck? He demands that all of Trump's administration be investigated. Note his total silence on Hillary's numerous, well documented actual bribery and other connections to Russia--vast silence. John Podesta's joint ownership with Putin? Silence. But the undersecretary of water under Trump must spend days grilled by CNN and Maxine Waters to satisfy Chuck.

What exactly is the "lifelong Republican" goal here in never, ever investigating Democrats whilst hobbling a Republican administration with cries of Russian ties that are just insinuations? What Republican goal is served by slinging mud at a Republican administration and swearing and belittling any criticism of Obama and his administration, Chuck? Because that's what you are doing.

Why, it's exact strategy I expect from Jane Hamsher. Not a "Republican."

Henry Kissinger would understand Inga and Peanut. He once said that the Hitler-Stalin peace treaty followed by the invasion of Russia was one of the defining events of the cold war. The communists all self identified.

Browndog said...The current media talking point is that Trump and his associates were swept up by happenstance in the course of normal, legal spying on Russians.

Oh, come on. With the right-wing media, it is all about Obama somehow spying on Trump. Drudge, Fox News, Breitbart, Limbaugh/Hannity/Ingraham/Savage/Levin, and on and on and on. Oh; and the Althouse blog.

Stop this victimization thing with the media, at least when it comes to Trump. Or at least leave the careful criticism to the people like Bernie Goldberg who wrote books on the subject.

"lifelong republican" Chuck: "Oh, come on. With the right-wing media, it is all about Obama somehow spying on Trump. Drudge, Fox News, Breitbart, Limbaugh/Hannity/Ingraham/Savage/Levin, and on and on and on. Oh; and the Althouse blog"

Note to self: Hmmm, here we see the subject attacking, forcefully, all center and right of center news sources. All of them. Yet offers no critique whatsoever of any leftist/left/left of center news source yet clings to the "troll"-like fantasy of being a "lifelong republican". One wonders what significant "events" in this subjects young life might have compelled him to adopt a persona of alignment with a political segment for which he completely, absolutely despises? Might those be sexual in nature? More investigation is needed.

McCarthy starts with "unmasking is usually not a violation, because it is a judgment call for which the intelligence agencies have broad discretion;" followed by: "So the question is not just whether Trump associates were properly investigated. It is whether the same investigative standards were applied to the Trump campaign and the Clinton campaign. The leaks, however, may be the only actual violations of criminal law."

"Still, let’s not confuse a dearth of criminal wrongs with a dearth of misconduct. It is possible that the investigation of Trump officials was a massive abuse of power. It is also possible that the investigation was triggered by good-faith concerns about Putin-regime perfidy, and that the connections of Trump associates to Russian interests are scandalous even if they are not illegal, and even if the Left’s “Russia hacked the election” narrative is a red herring. It is critical for Congress to get to the bottom of these questions, regardless of whether, technically, crimes were committed."

Chuck: My complaints with Trump are almost all personal. His style; his stupidity; his ugliness; his illiteracy; his recklessness.

Chuck seems remarkably proud of his inability to look beyond the obvious facade that is Trump's public persona, but I note again that while Trump is apparently too stupid to be a loser of a lawyer foaming away at his keyboard in a Michigan basement, he somehow managed to earn hundreds of millions of dollars and get himself elected president of the United States.

Neither you nor anyone else has any basis to call me a Democrat or a Dem-sympathizer. You don't do that to Ann Althouse, who confesses to having voted for Obama. I didn't do that.

Althouse argues in good faith. You are so pathetically blinded by your jealousy of Trump that you say things you don't and can't possibly believe, just so you can puff up your feeble chest. You're quite the he-man, all right.

Kevin: "Besides, Nunes also said their conversations "had nothing to do with Russia", which is conveniently left out by people who tend to quote him."

Why, what are you suggesting? That our very own "lifelong republican" Chuck, who is quite the little "stickler" for accurate quoting, would, himself, offer up a quote that is anything less than complete in order to attack Trump while defending obambi?

And Chuck demonstrates his fundamental belief: Obama is a good innocent person, and he is being persecuted by "Right wing media" who are all lying scumbags.

Straight out of Daily Kos.

James Rosen. Was he not spied on by Obama? Why yes, yes he was. Chuck doesn't know or acknowledge that though. That would destroy the narrative of "Obama the lightWorker who does no wrong" that Chuck apparently believes as an article of faith. Obama's IRS never did anything wrong either, right Chuck? Benghazi, Fast and Furious-- all made up scandals by the evil Reich Wing media. Oh, if only Breitbart and Drudge and Rush and Fox didn't exist with their scurrilous smears and inconvenient reveals of the truth--then Obama would be free to take his rightful place as the greatest human to ever live!

Thus sayeth Chuck. Lifelong Republican Trump, who thinks the main problem with the world is the existence of right wing media.

Drago said..."lifelong republican" Chuck: "Oh, come on. With the right-wing media, it is all about Obama somehow spying on Trump. Drudge, Fox News, Breitbart, Limbaugh/Hannity/Ingraham/Savage/Levin, and on and on and on. Oh; and the Althouse blog"

Note to self: Hmmm, here we see the subject attacking, forcefully, all center and right of center news sources. All of them. Yet offers no critique whatsoever of any leftist/left/left of center news source yet clings to the "troll"-like fantasy of being a "lifelong republican". One wonders what significant "events" in this subjects young life might have compelled him to adopt a persona of alignment with a political segment for which he completely, absolutely despises? Might those be sexual in nature? More investigation is needed.

You asshole. You stupid, fucking asshole. I didn't attack "all center and right of center news sources." That's you. Projecting.

I wasn't even "attacking" them! I was pointing out their existence, to deflate the perfectly idiotic notion, that all of "media" was out to get Trump.

Do you see? Of course you don't; you are such a blindered moron.

I didn't criticize any of the Trumpian media. I just pointed out that they are there, if anybody wants TrumpNews, through the TrumpFilter.

And of course there's a great body, of high quality conservative and right-leaning news and commentary outlets that I didn't list as part of TrumpMedia. The Wall Street Journal; the National Review; the Weekly Standard. At The American Spectator, you can get both TrumpMedia and straight conservative commentary.

The "rules" have been so loosened that its very likely that the fig leaf of "incidental surveillance" within the normal bounds will be sufficient to stave off criminal charges.

That's precisely the problem as has been spoken of for many years now. It took obambi to actually make use of the wiggle room while creating additional "legal" wiggle room with his last minute Exec Orders to fully politically weaponize this information...LEGALLY.

Again, Trump will end up winning this political argument as he has the others (Chuck will need to be medicated...again) but it's highly unlikely we will get to criminal charges given the insane looseness of the dems Stasi-like rules.

That does not include the leaks however and there may be some prosecutions there but i'm guessing very few since so many of these obambi admin types are actually married to MSM key players along with obambi expanding massively the universe of possible leakers.

Oh, come on. With the right-wing media, it is all about Obama somehow spying on Trump. Drudge, Fox News, Breitbart, Limbaugh/Hannity/Ingraham/Savage/Levin, and on and on and on. Oh; and the Althouse blog.

Lessee: didn't the WSJ and the National Review endorse Hillary? Both certainly call for unlimited immigration of Democrats and giving them voter cards. Chuck holds them up as the epitome of what he believes.

Any news outlet that doesn't want America to turn into Quito north, however, is suspect.

Note to self: Subject engages in what he clearly believes is "clever" labeling of media subject believes is too aligned with this Trump Caricature that the subject has created in his own mind. It is not surprising that no opposing media is labeled in any way at all. Further, subject often utilizes these opposing media sources as fountains of truth and knowledge for which questions must not be asked. Hmmmm. Could this be an elaborate ploy whereby our self-proclaimed "lifelong republican" is constructing an almost impossible scenario for an actual "lifelong republican" to emerge victorious as some sort of self-testing? (additional note: Need to order a physical exam to seek signs of self-flagellation and or "self-punishment")

But the point is this: The left has turned the US government and its agencies into the Stasi lite. Their purpose is to spy on Republicans, conservatives, and to hinder conservative groups. Chuck spends his time decrying anyone who points this out, and says not a word against the Democrats ruining our government.

But it really is stunning: the Democrat party and the left wants the US government to have a Gestapo. How some people can defend that is beyond me, but I've yet to see any Democrat partisan in this thread (including Chuck) criticize turning America into a leftist police state.

When it's their scandals, their messes, their misconduct, the Media's all "Move On! At this point, what difference does it make? No one has absolute, definitive proof that any laws were broken, so we're going to replace all the lies we've told up to this point with assertions that no matter what our actions weren't illegal in a way that's beyond argument. Even if illegal, there's no controlling legal authority, so forget it." The classic example, of course, is the pivot from "I did not have sex with that woman" and weeks of denials and attacks to, once actual proof showed up in the form of a stained dress, "sure, it happened, but it was activity between consenting adults, everyone lies about sex, lying about sex isn't perjury (somehow), and anyway you're a pervert and a jerk for even asking the questions (plus you're intruding into the private lives and marriage of good people)." It was something to behold.

When it's not their scandal, though, the Left has oddly different standards. Suddenly the appearance of impropriety is enough--suddenly everyone who might have any information about anything related to the topic MUST be compelled to testify in open session--probably some Dem will get to say "are you now or have you ever been involved with Rooskie agents" to the thunderous applause of Dems and longtime Repubs.

Well, whatever. Probably the only value something like this could have is to educate anyone naive enough to think that the State won't abuse its power for its own ends. When politicians control that power, well, what did you think you'd get? Nevertheless vast numbers of Americans keep voting to increase the size and scope of the Government, national security apparatus included, and then are surprised when self-interested people misuse government power (with full support and/or collusion of the Media, of course).

I mean, I don't want to say "wake up, sheeple!" or anything, but at this point the rotten nature of this whole deal is pretty tough to miss.

Unknown: "But the point is this: The left has turned the US government and its agencies into the Stasi lite."

This clear emerging fact is what is creating the immediate need for the dems/MSM/Left/"lifelong republicans" to ramp up the volume and quantity of the Russia-Collusion lies, the calls for a "special prosecutor" who would take the investigation "dark" for the next 2 years (with continuous innuendo-laden leaks designed to weaken Trump/republicans), and the "poo-poo-ing" of the emerging details of the obambi anti-Trump/republican political snooping using that very Stasi-state.

I fully expect "lifelong republican" Chuck and his Maddow-lovin' pals to continue to take their schtick to "11" in order to deflect from the obvious.

And Chuck demonstrates his fundamental belief: Obama is a good innocent person, and he is being persecuted by "Right wing media" who are all lying scumbags.

I didn't say that, I didn't write that; I don't believe that. See my post to Drago just above, on this same stupid point.Straight out of Daily Kos.

Fuck you, sport.James Rosen. Was he not spied on by Obama? Why yes, yes he was. Chuck doesn't know or acknowledge that though. That would destroy the narrative of "Obama the lightWorker who does no wrong" that Chuck apparently believes as an article of faith.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. I followed the James Rosen story on FNC, and I thought it was important. I felt like I never got the whole story; I presumed that the prime motivation on the part of the Obama Administration was probably to attack a leaker, as much as harass Rosen. So there. You got me wrong, again.Obama's IRS never did anything wrong either, right Chuck? Benghazi, Fast and Furious-- all made up scandals by the evil Reich Wing media. Oh, if only Breitbart and Drudge and Rush and Fox didn't exist with their scurrilous smears and inconvenient reveals of the truth--then Obama would be free to take his rightful place as the greatest human to ever live!

Wrong again. This gets so unhinged I don't know where to start rebutting. Again, my one overwhelming gripe with Drudge (which I used to like) and Breitbart and Rush and some parts of FNC is not with criticism of Obama; the problem is their sucking up to Trump and ignoring his outrages.Thus sayeth Chuck. Lifelong Republican Trump, who thinks the main problem with the world is the existence of right wing media.

Nope. As I have written too many times to count, I am a Wall Street Journal subscriber, a Heritage donor, a Federalist Society member, and a near-constant reader of the Weekly Standard and NRO.

In your next post, you can apologize for your reckless mischaracterization of me.

And scanning over the comment thread (which has as usual devolved into the increasingly less amusing "Lifelong Republican Chuck!" back and forth) it appears we have reached a point where you either believe (a) that Trump and Co. did some highly sleazy colluding with the Russians to mess with our election or (b) Trump and Co. did nothing wrong, but Obama's people engaged in illegal or at least improper spying, unmasking, and leaking to try and destroy Trump. No other possibilities, citizen! Pick your team, Red or Blue!

And to suggest that all of this might be reason for a thorough outside investigation to find out exactly what's going on here? Well clearly you're not on the Team, so back to the gulag for you, Comrade!

I also wish the last administration had taken some of this crap seriously. When the IRS goes rogue or a political appointee misuses security intel against political enemies, the failure to shut it down erodes trust in the larger project of democracy. I don't understand why this isn't glaringly obvious to people of all political persuasions.

4/4/17, 9:19 AM

LOL! Good one there! They were not running "rogue" they were doing their master's bidding with a nod, nod, wink, wink, in most cases. It was all appreciated if not directly approved. That is how they roll. Accountability is for conservatives, republicans, and suckers.

Chuckie takes time out from his mind-reading activities which give him perfect clarity into the motives of conservatives to complain that others should not do that!!

Note to self: Our subject once again reserves to himself (and other leftists whom he admires and links to) capabilities and authorities that he casually denies to others. This clear intellectual Napoleonic Complex syndrome usually manifests itself when the latest dem talking points of the day begin to collapse and/or it appears that claims made by this Trump Caricature the subject has created appears to be correct about a public pronouncement. (Additional Note: I believe we have gathered sufficient data points in this regard to make appropriate inferences))

Brando said..."Lessee: didn't the WSJ and the National Review endorse Hillary?"

Did they??? I know they were both anti-Trump (at least they were) but I wasn't aware of them actually endorsing Hillary.

There is media space. Many had allocated the right side of that space to WSJ and NR. They are propped up as putting out that particular side of the spectrum. They are like the public defendant lawyer. Poor people are thrown in jail and they NEED representation. So here we are as voters who want the government to stop taking over our lives and we get the WSJ and NR.

But invariably they stab the actual voters on the right in the back. They support the elitist scum in the GOP who always find ways to lose to the democrats. They always take a "measured tone" when describing the democrats. They just find a way to lose. And when someone like Trump fights back against the democrats like Bush or Ryan absolutely refused to do? They attack him.

@Vance:Lessee: didn't the WSJ and the National Review endorse Hillary?

Shut up. You don't have the game, Vance.

The WSJ hasn't endorsed a presidential candidate since 1932. The National Review didn't endorse anybody, and certainly not Hillary.

George Will said he'd vote for Hillary; such was his disgust with Trump. I like George Will and respect him. I came to a different decision. I voted for Trump, despite my disgust with Trump which rivals Will's.

Yes, Vance; I am part of that wing of the Republican Party that loathes and distrusts Trump. I am not part of any wing of the Democratic Party.

Now, please; leave me alone. Don't address any more of your stupid complaints to me. You really are not worth my time.

Brando the Neutral Observer: "And scanning over the comment thread (which has as usual devolved into the increasingly less amusing "Lifelong Republican Chuck!" back and forth) it appears we have reached a point where you either believe (a) that Trump and Co. did some highly sleazy colluding with the Russians to mess with our election or (b) Trump and Co. did nothing wrong, but Obama's people engaged in illegal or at least improper spying, unmasking, and leaking to try and destroy Trump. No other possibilities, citizen! Pick your team, Red or Blue!"

No evidence, at all, has been presented in support of (a)

We have the Head of the House Intelligence Committee who has categorically that he has seen, personnally, explicit evidence of (b) presented by current members of the intelligence community.

So, naturally, our Neutral Observer places (a) and (b) at the same place on the "what is true" spectrum.

Note to self: Subject enters public blog arena (not his own) to offer public comments but demands others not address his comments or himself. Subject is seen attempting to create a "blog safe space" wherein he can indulge his fantasies in an unchallenged fashion. I don't expect this to end well. Will investigate upping mediation dosages.

Brando: I have addressed a number of Comments pages (but no private emails) to Althouse, on the subject of her declining-quality commenters.

She never responds.

You are one of the few commenters here in whose education, training and avocation I'd find interesting. And yet I've never once asked you. And so I find it curious, that so many commenters here spend so much time demanding to know who I really voted for; who my law clients really are; if I really went to law school at all; and whether I am really a lifelong Republican.

So with you -- an interesting and credible person with well-considered views -- I've never bothered with any of that. Imagine how much less interested I am, with any of the members of the Althouse Trumpgang.

Note to self: Subject displays a need for continuous validating feedback from authority figures. However, Subject does not "trust" authority figures to read comments and come to distinct and perhaps different conclusions from Subject. This causes Subject great distress and might lead to increased violent rhetorical outbursts.

exiledonmainstreet said.........Feelz are a big problem for Chuck too. He hates Trump so much than he think Trump's tweets are a bigger threat to the Republic then a Democrat-run police state.

I voted for Trump precisely because I don't believe that. I think Trump's tweets are offensive, stupid and mostly counter-productive to a Republican agenda. I think Trump's tweets are a threat to the long term well being of Republicans and their party. And with the White House, the House, the Senate and most statehouses, I am not too worried about a Democrat-run police state.